It actually probably will be defunded if momentum continues in the way it has.

First of all, before anyone points the finger for its impending failure, we have to remember that it was passed using reconciliation - a procedural maneuver. It didn't pass due to popular support. In fact, they had a hard time getting it through the senate at all, losing the referendum in Massachusetts of all places, when Scott Brown was elected. This legislation has been doomed ever since, and the dominoes are falling into place to knock it down.

This defund Obamacare movement that is going on - I don't think this is going to play out the way it's being portrayed in the media where the Republicans take a lot of blame and Obama comes out looking like a hero. I think that the country is split enough on Obamacare and its impact that it will end up being a fight.

Anyone who is anywhere close to someone working in a small business has heard first hand the nervousness that these businesses have over the legislation. I'm sure this defund legislation is going to pass the House - I'm starting to wonder about the Senate.

Ted Cruz in the Senate says that we will use any procedural move possible to defund. That includes filibuster. After the success that Rand had with it, I have a hard time seeing whyCruz wouldn't go there. And if that's the direction that this goes in, America will be faced with a moment where for, say 12 hours, they're being confronted with a barrage of facts about what is going on with Obamacare, why it's not working right now, and why they should think twice about NOT defunding it.

I honestly don't think it's going to take too much of that kind of talk to get the American people stirred up about it and what this thing is doing to our economy, not to mention the concerns around what it will do to healthcare itself. It's not popular legislation by a long shot. Already Rassmussen has favorability for defunding it at 51%. Whatever anyone things about Rassmussen, his polls aren't 10 points off. They're in the neighborhood.

The mainstream media is playing this off like it's a tempest in a teapot, but I think it's going to be more of a battle than most are imagining. And regardless of what happens in the next two weeks, Ted Cruz is going to come out a winner.

Even if Cruz fails to get the defund through now, he puts key Senate Democrats on the line for mid-terms in state where there is a lot of grass roots support to defund. Despite what any Democrat will tell you, that is hugely significant:

Consistent with previous analyses, we find that supporters of health care reform paid a significant price at the polls. We go beyond these analyses by identifying a mechanism for this apparent effect: constituents perceived incumbents who supported health care reform as more ideologically distant (in this case, more liberal), which in turn was associated with lower support for those incumbents. Our analyses show that this perceived ideological difference mediates most of the apparent impact of support for health care reform on both individual-level vote choice and aggregate-level vote share. We conclude by simulating counterfactuals that suggest health care reform may have cost Democrats their House majority.

The Republicans are 6 seats away from a Senate majority, and they are headed towards likely picking up 3 of them in Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota. And according to Nate Silver, the other three are out there:

Republicans could then win three more seats from among red states like Louisiana and Arkansas, where vulnerable Democratic incumbents are on the ballot, or they could take aim at two purple states, Iowa and Michigan, where Democrats have retired. More opportunities could also come into play if the national environment becomes more favorable to Republicans (such as because of a further slide in Mr. Obama’s approval ratings). Meanwhile, while Kentucky and Georgia are possibly vulnerable, Republicans have few seats of their own to defend; unlike in 2012, they can focus almost entirely on playing offense. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...a-tossup/?_r=0

In that light, this move is politically brilliant. It turns the midterms into a referendum on Obamacare just as the thing is coming out of the gates. That'll be a slam dunk for Republicans. Anything can happen after that.

I think this is what will happen: There will be a fight in the Senate, and Cruz will narrowly lose, but the eventual compromise will be the bill getting funded until sometime shortly after 2014 elections. At that point, whether Obamacare continues will be determined by how the Senate turned out. If the Republicans have the votes, they'll defund and replace Obamacare with their own legislation. If they don't, Obamacare will survive at least until 2016 - but probably longer. It might have enough inertia at that point to be safe.

I think Obamacare is on the ropes. I would no longer be surprised to see Obama have to sign an act that defunds and replaces his signature legislation.

won't happen. the referendum on obamacare already happened in the last election and even if reps took control of both houses they still wouldn't overcome a veto by the president. reps would need to win the WH in 2016 which is pretty unlikely. also obamacare may by name be unpopular only 23% want to see it repealed.

Most of the law is permanent and cannot be "defunded" as such. It's more or less a myth.

Anything can be defunded. But that's not the right play here.

They should be pushing for delay and hammering on the fact that the Emperor already delayed most of it anyway, except for the part that kicks Joe Six Pack square in the nuts for being a dirtbag lazy non-insured freeloader.

won't happen. the referendum on obamacare already happened in the last election and even if reps took control of both houses they still wouldn't overcome a veto by the president. reps would need to win the WH in 2016 which is pretty unlikely. also obamacare may by name be unpopular only 23% want to see it repealed.

I don't see that as being true because the law has not been implemented. We'll see though. I personally hope it gets trashed.

We'll be playing this game over and over again until we decide, like wiser industrialized nations before us, that healthcare must be nationalized into a single payer system, which is the best of all the bad options available. You won't invent the perfect system. Why? Because people die no matter what you do.

Obamacare is a band-aid. The continual rise in costs will eventually bankrupt the health care system in the U.S., and maybe the U.S. itself if we let it. Pay me now. Pay me later. Das macht nichts.

We'll be playing this game over and over again until we decide, like wiser industrialized nations before us, that healthcare must be nationalized into a single payer system, which is the best of all the bad options available. You won't invent the perfect system. Why? Because people die no matter what you do.

Obamacare is a band-aid. The continual rise in costs will eventually bankrupt the health care system in the U.S., and maybe the U.S. itself if we let it. Pay me now. Pay me later. Das macht nichts.

Yep...if we're gonna do it and be as fiscally sound as possible...single payer.

We'll be playing this game over and over again until we decide, like wiser industrialized nations before us, that healthcare must be nationalized into a single payer system, which is the best of all the bad options available. You won't invent the perfect system. Why? Because people die no matter what you do.

Obamacare is a band-aid. The continual rise in costs will eventually bankrupt the health care system in the U.S., and maybe the U.S. itself if we let it. Pay me now. Pay me later. Das macht nichts.

^^

Like I've said a billion times, trying to treat health care as a for profit, insurable thing is idiotic.

Everyone gets sick, and it's not monetarily profitable to actually take care of sick people.

Good luck with that system built on all-volunteer Doctors, Nurses, Scientists, and Technologists.

Personal interest (profit motive) drives all of them. It drives everyone. Even when you don't like it.

The real problem is cost. Overinsurance and it's Tragedy of the Commons effect on the market only help to make it worse.

Single Payer's only solution is price control and rationing, with the side effects of disincentive and stagnation.

Private Pay's only solution is means. with the side effect of significant disparity.

Tragedy of the Commons does not apply. Medical treatment is not a limited resource. Use a graduated, progressive single payer system combined with a strong, health care education system. Like I said, there can be no perfect system. Disease happens. People die.

Good luck with that system built on all-volunteer Doctors, Nurses, Scientists, and Technologists.

Personal interest (profit motive) drives all of them. It drives everyone. Even when you don't like it.

The real problem is cost. Overinsurance and it's Tragedy of the Commons effect on the market only help to make it worse.

Single Payer's only solution is price control and rationing, with the side effects of disincentive and stagnation.

Private Pay's only solution is means. with the side effect of significant disparity.

All volunteers? Not quite. Though health care practitioners in single-payer countries do on average get paid less than in the US, they're far from being volunteers and they still get paid significantly more than an average professional.

Also, I'd argue that disincentives and stagnation shouldn't be a real concern. Most well paid Doctors aren't going out of their way to develop new theories, treatment, etc... most of those things come from Doctors across the world and at home who have new and better ideas on how to best help their patients. Plus, nothing in a single payer system would limit those Doctors and others from being able to patent procedures, techniques, or new tech, which could then be sold for extra profit to themselves above and beyond salary. Nothing stops them from publishing. In fact, nothing really changes, except in the long run their school costs likely come down somewhat as well as their long term salary expectations, but not significantly.

It is recognized generally that western Europe and the US have the worlds best doctors and part of that is that those doctors are coming out of US medical schools.

So your position is that people become healthcare practitioners for the money, not because they have a drive to do that? Typically that is the opposite concept of most people with success in their field. Usually they go to do what they love and the money follows. The only time that doesn't seem to be true is with Wall Street types and sometimes lawyers... and probably most politicians.

We'll be playing this game over and over again until we decide, like wiser industrialized nations before us, that healthcare must be nationalized into a single payer system, which is the best of all the bad options available. You won't invent the perfect system. Why? Because people die no matter what you do.

Obamacare is a band-aid. The continual rise in costs will eventually bankrupt the health care system in the U.S., and maybe the U.S. itself if we let it. Pay me now. Pay me later. Das macht nichts.

Really, in the end, who cares who pays the bill anyway?

The Government pays through taxes and relatibely low admin expense

Private Insurers who cut 20% out of every $1 of premium for admin and other non-health related BS.

Honestly if you want savings, take the difference between Medicares 4% overhead and Private insurance's 20% overheard (and its only 20% because its mandated to be by law) and you should have Billions and Billions in money to pay actual expenses.

All volunteers? Not quite. Though health care practitioners in single-payer countries do on average get paid less than in the US, they're far from being volunteers and they still get paid significantly more than an average professional.

Also, I'd argue that disincentives and stagnation shouldn't be a real concern. Most well paid Doctors aren't going out of their way to develop new theories, treatment, etc... most of those things come from Doctors across the world and at home who have new and better ideas on how to best help their patients. Plus, nothing in a single payer system would limit those Doctors and others from being able to patent procedures, techniques, or new tech, which could then be sold for extra profit to themselves above and beyond salary. Nothing stops them from publishing. In fact, nothing really changes, except in the long run their school costs likely come down somewhat as well as their long term salary expectations, but not significantly.

It is recognized generally that western Europe and the US have the worlds best doctors and part of that is that those doctors are coming out of US medical schools.

So your position is that people become healthcare practitioners for the money, not because they have a drive to do that? Typically that is the opposite concept of most people with success in their field. Usually they go to do what they love and the money follows. The only time that doesn't seem to be true is with Wall Street types and sometimes lawyers... and probably most politicians.

Yep. The massive amount of profit being gouged from the American people by the American health care industry does not go to doctors. It goes to insurance companies.